body clock does affect, flying east coast and playing 1 pm EST is equivalent to playing at 10 am our time, so that's too early for the body to be ready normally. Thst's why we normally do better in Monday night even if we are away.

I've traveled for years and have said many times that going east is way harder on your mind than traveling west. The difference in teams in those different directions used to be pretty extensive. I know there are those that don't believe this but it sure mattered to me and the sales people I worked with. We'd be mentally beat for about 24 hours.

Last year Pete went a day early to 3 hour, 10am games and it seemed to help. I don't have the answer but it seems to me that Pete has the team more ready to play.

Why all these threads on road struggles this year? We've lost two close games that came down to the last possession against two tough divisional opponents. If we start getting waxed on the road against terrible teams, like this week, I'll get worried.

I think all these factors are correct.. and hell.. these days, how many really BAD teams are there in the NFL? Not many. So home field advantage definitely helps.

I don't think you can discount the fact when they play on the east coast, it's usually at 10AM Pacific. That's a big advantage for the team used to playing at 1 PM going west and playing at 4 PM east coast time. Too lazy to look up the specifics, but I know we're not the only west coast team that struggles in that scenario.. hell off the top of my head, the Niners and Raiders already lost on the long trip. I bet at the end of the year, west coast teams finish under .500 in the coast-to-coast trip.

We're not that good...It's pretty sad for me to say, but it's the honest truth. The advantage we get from C-Link is incredible. That's why when we go on the road we normally lose. In the past few years, the only games we win on the road is if S-teams and D play a MASSIVE role- either a pick 6- Punt/Kick return for TD...ect.

If the Baltimore's, GB, NE, of the world had a home field advantage like we did, they would be unbeatable at home.

Being from the east coast, going west and adapting to the time change is really easy compared to going east (gaining time). I find going east is a bit depressing just because of the time loss. It could just be me though.

WR - Besides Largent and Blades, cannot think of a reliable, high performing WR that spanned multiple years. DJack was not bad but he could be inconsistent. Engram was reliable, but wasn't making huge game changing plays throughout the season.

TE - Stevens was probably our most gifted athletically but never could lose his demons

RB - Alexander was explosive and helped during the brief period the Seahawks weren't total turds on the road. But they lost many an embarrassing road game at the height of the Seahawks success. During Lynch's time here the team has won @Chicago (2), @NY, @St Louis, @Arizona.

2 - QB. Matt is the best QB the team has had. During his heyday (2002-2007) the team won at a decent clip on the road (3-5 games won a year). Get a Franchise QB better than Matt and you should see better road records.

3 - Defensive playmakers. Not until Chuck Knox came onboard and nor since has the defense had league-wide acclaimed play makers. Pete is starting to fill the defense with these type of players. Lofa was briefly under Mike but there wasn't much around him. Hill showed flashes but seems as though our old schemes robbed him of being a sack artist, then injuries and run-ins with the law kept him from becoming that impact player.

4 - Coaching. Mike had cred as an offensive guy but he had his issues. Pete is an incomplete. Knox was a good coach but not a heralded one. He just never had an abundance of talent to work with as a team. He had a good coaching staff but for the most part the team was a middle of the road type of team. Knox could never get over the hump with the Rams or Bills when he coached them either. Thus a mediocre road team.

The sad thing is we have a very tough road schedule this year and even with what I think is a much more solid team, winning on the road is hard. Aside from our divisional rivals we're playing Giants (recent SB winner), Colts, Texans, and Falcons (all teams that made playoffs this year). So I can see us having a poor road win schedule and they'll still say we suck on the road despite the fact that our road schedule this year is tough as nails.

gspin2k1 wrote:The sad thing is we have a very tough road schedule this year and even with what I think is a much more solid team, winning on the road is hard. Aside from our divisional rivals we're playing Giants (recent SB winner), Colts, Texans, and Falcons (all teams that made playoffs this year). So I can see us having a poor road win schedule and they'll still say we suck on the road despite the fact that our road schedule this year is tough as nails.

Meh, I'm not sweating it. Giants are not that good. They had their run.

The Colts better find a defense, because we'll hang a lot of points on them.

Texans will be a tough game, especially trying to keep Watt off of Wilson.

Well seeing that it seems like every Seahawks team ever has struggled on the road (particularly the east coast) one has to assume its the traveling from the west coast to east coast. Factors both include the distance and time change.

I'd like to see what the Raiders, Chargers, and 49ers combined road winning percentage compared to home winning percentage has been over the past decade in the eastern time zone.

I think Pete should seriously consider staying out east when they play back to back east coast/central time zone games.

I think historically, our guys had a tendency to party while on the road. I recall hearing third party accounts of seeing our guys in the bars and VIPs late, the night before a road game.

Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro

SmokinHawk wrote:I think historically, our guys had a tendency to party while on the road. I recall hearing third party accounts of seeing our guys in the bars and VIPs late, the night before a road game.

I have a really hard time believing this. I thought that the players were on full lock down saturday night with staff guarding the halls, making sure no one gets in or out.

I know that seams overly simple but good, strong, dominant football teams have an excellent chance of winning anywhere.

Us not so much.. We just aren't good enough.

In what universe is this Seahawks team "mediocre?" A top five defense and a top ten offense in points scored does not equal mediocre. This is a good team playing in what is arguably the toughest division in the NFL right now. The problem might be that they get so used to the advantage of our incredibly loud crowd that there's a letdown on the road when it's not there to disrupt the opposition's offense. For a team like the Niners, it's usually just not that huge a difference because the home crowd sucks compared to ours in the way of making noise.

I know that seams overly simple but good, strong, dominant football teams have an excellent chance of winning anywhere.

Us not so much.. We just aren't good enough.

In what universe is this Seahawks team "mediocre?" A top five defense and a top ten offense in points scored does not equal mediocre. This is a good team playing in what is arguably the toughest division in the NFL right now. The problem might be that they get so used to the advantage of our incredibly loud crowd that there's a letdown on the road when it's not there to disrupt the opposition's offense. For a team like the Niners, it's usually just not that huge a difference because the home crowd sucks compared to ours in the way of making noise.

Historically, the medicore label fits perfectly. The question/OP is asking what has been the cause of our road woes over time, not necessarily how we are right this minute.

Alas, losing in Detroit and Miami last season showed it's still a bugaboo. They got better after that, but it's not like we can puff our chests out yet.

It's about to change, Hawks will go 4-4 on the road next year, I'll take it. They have proven that THIS team can win on the road. Russell Wilson is the X factor, he keeps us in every game, and will continue to. I wouldn't be shocked if they won 5, although the road schedule is pretty tough.

good teams over the years have relied on dominating at home 8-0 and splitting their away games at least for a 12-4 record. Holds true even for East coast power houses. 12-4 this year would have meant the #2 seed and San Francisco coming to the Clink for the NFC. Have to begin there and work forward. I would avoid the 13-3 record curse though, you want to be 12-4 or 14-2.

I know that seams overly simple but good, strong, dominant football teams have an excellent chance of winning anywhere.

Us not so much.. We just aren't good enough.

In what universe is this Seahawks team "mediocre?" A top five defense and a top ten offense in points scored does not equal mediocre. This is a good team playing in what is arguably the toughest division in the NFL right now. The problem might be that they get so used to the advantage of our incredibly loud crowd that there's a letdown on the road when it's not there to disrupt the opposition's offense. For a team like the Niners, it's usually just not that huge a difference because the home crowd sucks compared to ours in the way of making noise.

LOL!He posted that assessment in October of last year, when that argument could still be made. 8-)

I know that seams overly simple but good, strong, dominant football teams have an excellent chance of winning anywhere.

Us not so much.. We just aren't good enough.

In what universe is this Seahawks team "mediocre?" A top five defense and a top ten offense in points scored does not equal mediocre. This is a good team playing in what is arguably the toughest division in the NFL right now. The problem might be that they get so used to the advantage of our incredibly loud crowd that there's a letdown on the road when it's not there to disrupt the opposition's offense. For a team like the Niners, it's usually just not that huge a difference because the home crowd sucks compared to ours in the way of making noise.

Look at the date the post was made (like the previous poster pointed out before I failed to read it ... ha ha!)

This is an old thread someone brought back to life. Back then the team was on to its way to a 4-4 first half. The debate among some was whether Flynn needed to get time because the offense was so limited. That and Tech is a contrarian. Doesn't like rainbows and sunshine blown up his butt.

SoulfishHawk wrote:It's about to change, Hawks will go 4-4 on the road next year, I'll take it. They have proven that THIS team can win on the road. Russell Wilson is the X factor, he keeps us in every game, and will continue to. I wouldn't be shocked if they won 5, although the road schedule is pretty tough.

Really? 4-4 ? Who do you predict will beat the 2013 Seahawks on the road?

but on a serious note, Pete might never admit it but Jet Lag is a real thing Jet lag isn’t caused by the length of time you travel but by the amount of time zones you cross. The more zones you cross, the more jet lag you experience.

- Jet lag only happens when you travel from east to west or west to east, not in any other cardinal direction

- The effects of jet lag have more of an impact if you travel from west to east (not east to west), because the day will feel longer than usual.

- Jet lag is not likely to occur if you only cross one or two time zones. However, it’s not entirely unknown for some people to be sensitive to just one.

- The older someone is, the more impactful the effects of jet lag can be and therefore the longer the body will take to bounce back to its rhythm.

- According to experts, the brain receives less oxygen when a person travels by plane, which might increase the chances of any jet lag problems becoming harsher.

It's very simple. Teams that win consistently on the road are overall good teams with a running game, defense and typically high rated QB. The Seahawks have not had that combination since 2005, when they lost 3 road games and really the last one was a gimme because Holmgren sat the starters. The 2012 team started winning on the road not long after the legend was started. If those early losses against STL, SF and AZ were replayed it is very likely that they win those games considering it was they muted offense that lost them. The Detroit and Miami losses were on the defense late.

No way does the 2011 or 2010 team beat the Skins or comeback in ATL.

Road wins can come from luck too, a good bounce here and there. The Seahawks were much better on the road this year, but it didn't show in their road record, just like the 2011 Hawks were better than the 2010 team, but it just wasn't enough to get over the hump. PC has improved this team immensely over 3 years and he still isn't done yet.

The biggest reason the Hawks will win more on the road next year is RW.

The only concern I have and I mean only is that Bevell will get cute and pass even though Lynch is gaining yardage. 1/30/2015 - loaf

loafoftatupu wrote:It's very simple. Teams that win consistently on the road are overall good teams with a running game, defense and typically high rated QB. The Seahawks have not had that combination since 2005, when they lost 3 road games and really the last one was a gimme because Holmgren sat the starters. The 2012 team started winning on the road not long after the legend was started. If those early losses against STL, SF and AZ were replayed it is very likely that they win those games considering it was they muted offense that lost them. The Detroit and Miami losses were on the defense late.

No way does the 2011 or 2010 team beat the Skins or comeback in ATL.

Road wins can come from luck too, a good bounce here and there. The Seahawks were much better on the road this year, but it didn't show in their road record, just like the 2011 Hawks were better than the 2010 team, but it just wasn't enough to get over the hump. PC has improved this team immensely over 3 years and he still isn't done yet.

The biggest reason the Hawks will win more on the road next year is RW.

I agree with this post the most, I think the reason we sucked on the road is not really for a other reason that we just flat out sucked in general.

Most teams including the Seahawks design a different game plan for away games than at home. They think consrvative. The play "not to lose"..They do not play with abandon to win like the Hawks do at home.

What the Seahawks need to know is that we really are with them ANYWHERE they play.

No conquering force in human history like the Romans and many other civilizations fought to "not lose". They fought like the eyes of their citizens were upon them at all times. They fought without fear.

It's not the travel or jet lag from travel. In football home-field advantage is created by conscious and unconscious referee bias, body-clock issues, and for the unprepared, crowd noise. We "struggle" on the road because every team "struggles" on the road and no matter how well we can feasibly play on the road, it will always pale in comparison to how well we play at home. This is a non-issue!

BirdsCommaAngry wrote:It's not the travel or jet lag from travel. In football home-field advantage is created by conscious and unconscious referee bias, body-clock issues, and for the unprepared, crowd noise. We "struggle" on the road because every team "struggles" on the road and no matter how well we can feasibly play on the road, it will always pale in comparison to how well we play at home. This is a non-issue!

The Radish wrote:I've traveled for years and have said many times that going east is way harder on your mind than traveling west. The difference in teams in those different directions used to be pretty extensive. I know there are those that don't believe this but it sure mattered to me and the sales people I worked with. We'd be mentally beat for about 24 hours.

Last year Pete went a day early to 3 hour, 10am games and it seemed to help. I don't have the answer but it seems to me that Pete has the team more ready to play.

"going east is way harder on your mind than traveling west" Yup!!! So very true

BirdsCommaAngry wrote:It's not the travel or jet lag from travel. In football home-field advantage is created by conscious and unconscious referee bias, body-clock issues, and for the unprepared, crowd noise. We "struggle" on the road because every team "struggles" on the road and no matter how well we can feasibly play on the road, it will always pale in comparison to how well we play at home. This is a non-issue!

While it's true that, over time, home-field advantage has remained constant across the league, statistics also back up the fact that west coast teams playing in the east have a significantly worse winning percentage than east coast teams playing in the west.

I would love to know the win/loss % of traveled games played early vs normal or later starts. It would be very interesting to see how west coast teams have fared vs how east coast teams have fared.

If memory serves, we have done very well in the later time slots on the road. I wonder if this is true for other west coast teams. Could be a good proving point that the 10AM start is much more critical than the travel and if the NFL see's fit to prevent it's east coast teams from having to travel west more than twice a season then they should also find a way for west coast teams to not have to play 10AM time slots. Especially in the frigging playoffs.

East coast teams automatically play a later start by nature of traveling west but I would like to see if their win % is different when traveling west and playing a late game.

I would be willing to bet the earlier start time is significant and probably much more than east coast teams having to travel west.